6 ms·

> One of the things I argued back when the Mono Project first showed up and everyone and his dog was pissing on it because C# -> Microsoft -> the devil. That's

> One of the things I argued back when the Mono Project first showed up and everyone and his dog was pissing on it because C# -> Microsoft -> the devil. That's not true at all. The main problem with the whole MS/Mono/C# thing was that Microsoft was openly being hostile to FLOSS in general and Linux in particular, thus gained a well earn reputation of not being a trustable entity. Thus at the time adopting any technology churned by Microsoft was clearly a serious liability.

Gibbon1 6y ago
Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out. People said that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened. Eventually they bought it to keep it alive. I think that the last ten years validates my claim. It's really sad that few developers used it, just like the Linux desktop is sad.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out. It wasn't but that's besides the point. Mono posed a serious risk because of how Microsoft's threatened all potential users of Mono due to all the loopholes in Microsoft's promises, along with Microsoft's lack of credibility. https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono > People said that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened. The people said the exact same thing about Oracle and Java, and here we are. Just because you believe someone won't pull the trigger on you that doesn't mean it's a good idea to let them put a gun to your head.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > It wasn't but that's besides the point. That actually is the point. Mono was an independent implementation. And C#/.net was much less encumbered than 'open source and free, write once run anywhere' Java. Free as long as you aren't trying to embedded anything but one full stack implementation controlled by Sun. Otherwise you paid through the nose. Consider as well the beloved Sun sued Microsoft for implementing their own compatible version of Java. And later Oracle tried to sue the pants off Google for just using Java based API's. So the actual history disproves the conventional wisdom.

Gibbon1 6y ago

Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out. People said that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened. Eventually they bought it to keep it alive. I think that the last ten years validates my claim. It's really sad that few developers used it, just like the Linux desktop is sad.

rumanator 6y ago
> Mono was a non Microsoft implementation when it first came out. It wasn't but that's besides the point. Mono posed a serious risk because of how Microsoft's threatened all potential users of Mono due to all the loopholes in Microsoft's promises, along with Microsoft's lack of credibility. https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono https://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono > People said that if you used Mono Microsoft would come after you. And nothing happened. The people said the exact same thing about Oracle and Java, and here we are. Just because you believe someone won't pull the trigger on you that doesn't mean it's a good idea to let them put a gun to your head.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > It wasn't but that's besides the point. That actually is the point. Mono was an independent implementation. And C#/.net was much less encumbered than 'open source and free, write once run anywhere' Java. Free as long as you aren't trying to embedded anything but one full stack implementation controlled by Sun. Otherwise you paid through the nose. Consider as well the beloved Sun sued Microsoft for implementing their own compatible version of Java. And later Oracle tried to sue the pants off Google for just using Java based API's. So the actual history disproves the conventional wisdom.